Personality and exercise participation across the breast cancer experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between personality and exercise participation across the breast cancer experience. Based on the Five-Factor Model and previous exercise research, it was hypothesized that high scores of extraversion (E) and conscientiousness (C), and low scores of neuroticism (N) would discriminate exercise stage during and following cancer treatment as well as changes in exercise stage across the cancer experience (i.e. from prediagnosis through treatment to posttreatment). Participants were 175 non-metastatic breast cancer survivors who completed a mailed questionnaire that assessed demographic and medical information, personality (the NEO-Five Factor Inventory), and exercise stage recalled for three time periods (prediagnosis, during treatment, and posttreatment). Multivariate analysis of variance showed differences in personality based on exercise stage both during cancer treatment and posttreatment and also for exercise pattern across the cancer experience. Univariate F-tests and post hoc analyses identified N, E, and C as the key personality dimensions. N was associated with earlier exercise stages and a maladaptive exercise pattern whereas E and C were associated with more advanced exercise stages and adaptive exercise patterns. It was concluded that personality may be an important determinant of exercise following breast cancer diagnosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".